The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

By Joe Ragonese

A mass shooting, and then calls for more gun control; it’s the pattern of the 21st Century.  By now we all know that 58 people were killed in Las Vegas, and 523 wounded by a man firing a rifle converted to full automatic (by use of a legal bump-stock,) and in the wake of that shooting Democrats are hysterically calling for more gun control.  What is frightening about it is that Republicans, not only RINOs, but Freedom Caucus conservatives, are caving into the idea.

One of the main reasons for relegating the Second Amendment is that “no one needs a fully automatic rifle.”  So, to placate the hysterical left, they will outlaw the bump-stock system that turns a semi-auto into a functional full automatic rifle.  Republicans will go along with this hoping that it will satisfy Democrats for now; until the next mass shooting and their insatiable need to control guns.

The only thing is that what they are asking for is not reasonable.  What, you say, shaking your head and parroting the left’s attack on the Constitution. Even the NRA has said that the BATF should revisit its approval of the system; show me why anyone needs a fully automatic rifle, you will insist.  Well, I won’t, instead, I will tell you why it is unreasonable to ask Americans to forego ownership of fully automatic firearms; which have been outlawed since 1987 and controlled since 1934.

A little background into the Second Amendment is needed to understand why God fearing, America first, country music loving Americans need a fully automatic rifle.  When our founding fathers went to war with England, they did so because in an effort to control his unruly colonial population, the King of England decided to outlaw the private ownership of certain types of firearms, those that no one needed to hunt or shoot clay targets, rather the assault weapons of the day, those which were suitable for military use.

That was all, simply a reasonable request; just weapons of war, those pesky colonialists could keep their more accurate and slower loading hunting and self-defense weapons, all he wanted was weapons that were suitable for warfare.  Those would be the smooth bore muskets that were faster and easier to load and had the ability to sustain rapid fire.  Yes, the Brown Bess musket was the assault rifle of its day.

When the British were about to confiscate those weapons of war outside Boston, a militia formed, armed with those military grade weapons, in Concord and Lexington, and contested the British’s right to take away our firearms.  It was the shot heard around the world, the shot that led to our independence.  Once independence had been won, our founding fathers, in the greatness of their wisdom, knowing that the only way to remain free was to have guns to stop a tyrant, wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

That amendment simply states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The Militia was the people, and in order to have a militia of any type, meant that they were armed with military grade weapons.  Today’s military is armed with an array of fully automatic weapons.

The argument that outlawing a device that converts a semi-automatic rifle into mimicking a fully automatic rifle is only reasonable, and that no one needs it, is counter to the reason the Second Amendment was written in the first place, as well as opposed to one of the Supreme Court’s decision on firearms control; a decision that still stands as a guide for laws involving guns.

The Supreme Court found in the 1933 case of United States v. Miller, that “The court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun, having a barrel of less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the second Amendment guarantees to citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”

That decision gave way to every gun control law that has followed; however, the dumb Democrats forget that even though it allowed the prohibition of certain types of weapons, the standard for prohibition was its usefulness in a well-regulated militia.  In other words, if a weapon can be used in a firefight to save the constitution, it was covered by the Second Amendment.  So, you may not need a fully automatic rifle to hunt or target shoot, but you do if you might fight terrorists on the streets of Las Vegas.

Our founding fathers were an intelligent group of men with foresight well beyond most.  They knew that Americans must fear big government.  It is why our Constitution is written with a small national government, with limited powers, and strong local governmental power, with the final component being the people, you and me.  It provides us with the tools that we need to insure the continued success of American democracy, if we only use them.

They did this because they feared a powerful central government.  They had just fought to break away from one and didn’t want to form another.  Their fears are fully warranted.  While they understood that some fool was going to use his constitutionally protected military grade firearm to commit crimes and kill innocent people, those deaths were the price of freedom.  As cruel as it sounds, those 58 dead and over 500 injured in Las Vegas paid the price in blood to keep America Free.

Governments are the real mass murders, and people who commit mass murder, armed with constitutionally protected weapons, do not even come close to the numbers killed by governments; 200 million dead in the name of communism that made Hitler’s 20 million child’s play in comparison.  Banana republics have accounted for tens of millions of deaths and Islam for millions more.  Africa is in chaos, and what passes for governments there kill many millions more.  All the single mass murderers across the world, including Islamic terrorists, do not even account for a small percentage of the deaths caused at the hands of governments.

Knowing this, our founding fathers provided us with the means to stop governmental excess, it is the Second Amendment.  The first thing every tyrannical government does when it comes to power is to take away its citizens means of resistance, aka their guns.  It is why I fear any politician who wants to take away our guns.  They have malevolent motives in doing so, or are too stupid to be in office.

As we have seen with BLM an Antifa, the left is trying to take over America, by force of arms, and they do not want real Americans, you and me, armed to resist.  Now, more than ever, holding firm to the Second Amendment is more crucial than at any time since the Revolution.  The NRA must keep fighting to maintain every shred of it, and every conservative must stand behind them and not cave into even the smallest incursion of the most important right Americans have; because, without the Second Amendment, none of the others will stand.

3 comments on “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
  1. People need to be reminded what Lexington and Concord were about. Just as the British wished to disarm the people so do today’s self proclaimed elitists.

    We should all be prepared to give them our firearms, one bit of metal at a time.

  2. Hi Joe —
    I’ve never belonged to the NRA and have no intentions of changing my status. A liberal can never be satisfied. They always want more. They are bent on destroying America and are doing one heck of a fine job. Giving them the bump stock isn’t going to change anything – except maybe my respect level for a few wavering politicians.
    I am looking forward to primary-ing a bunch of RINOs. Thanks for your great writing. Stay strong, Joe, and Steady the Course.

  3. The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment is that the free citizens of this free nation have the capacity to defend our lives, liberties and pursuits from a tyrannical government, a government that would subjugate its citizens. The first act of a Prince is to proclaim his “benevolence”, his second act is to disarm the citizens for their “own good”, and his final act would be to “subjugate the free citizens” under his terms “under his arms”.

    Those that would believe that the forefathers of this nation sat around debating hunting and recreational rights as the foundation for the 2nd Amendment are the ones most likely to be the Prince or the fool, of which neither should be taken lightly.

    Do you really believe that you would have a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th Amendments etc… if the Hanover’s of England had become victorious in 1783? Hell no! They would have disarmed you, confiscated your property, your wealth if any and hanged all patriot sympathizers. Then the rest would still be slaves, both white and black, for the Empire.

    Ask the people – of North Korea, China, Russia, Venezuela or any other socialist, communist or tyrannical regime – who controls the arms in their nation. The day the government wants to disarm its citizenry is the day the free citizens will need to disarm the government.

    This debate over the ridding of the 2nd Amendment was over the day the Constitutional Congress voted on it. I will not, as the majority of law abiding free citizens who own guns, turn over our arms to a government.

    Sensible regulations – yes, the incremental encroachment on our right to defend ourselves – no.

    The largest infantry in the world for the defense and securities of our lives, liberties and pursuits is the 100,000,000 citizen militia of the United States.

Comments are closed.